Is globalization a positive or negative impact on human rights?

There are many definitions of globalization. Neoliberals view globalization as a positive and inevitable force in the global political economy.  For the purpose of this discussion, the term “globalization is a package of transnational flows of people, production, investment, information, ideas and authority (not new, but stronger and faster).” (Brysk 2002:1) Despite its many meanings, there is a consensus that globalization has impacted states, markets and civil society. The goal of this brief analysis is to evaluate how globalization has impacted states, markets and civil society that both hinder and facilitate the implementation of global human rights.

 

From a neoliberal perspective, globalization is eroding both the significance and power of the state. Some would argue that the state is a decaying Westphalian structure in the current political, economic and social landscape. This erosion of state power as provided space for other organizations that can monitor human rights abuses. As Alison Brysk stated, “these (organizations) include not just the international human rights regime and movement but a broader range of international and non governmental organizations which monitor states, empower citizens and aid victims: from anti-corruption to election monitoring to the development organizations to transnational ethnic associations.” (Brysk 2002: 244-245) This diffusion of state power has allowed global governance structures to advance the implementation of human rights (e.g. International Criminal Court (ICC)).

 

At the same time, the state and its illegitimate use of state power is an obstacle to the implementation of human rights. The state, particularly state sovereignty is an obstacle for the enforcement of global human rights. Global governance structures such has the ICC lack enforcement capabilities, as ICC’s rulings are just recommendations and are not binding to the state. Also, state forms of repression have evolved along with globalization and the increased uncontrollable flow of transnational goods.  Transnational flows are perceived as positive goods; however, this is a misconception because globalization has increased goods such has drugs. To deal with the increase of drugs or migrants workers, the state employs repressive measures which either fuel or initiate civil conflicts. The repressive states support the numerous labor rights abuses committed by multinational corporations in exchange for foreign investment and trade. In the same vein, the relationship between multinational corporations and states can produce states polices that directly violate human rights which indirectly serve as catalyst for social conflicts where by a state administers repressive measures that directly violate civil and security rights of citizens.

 

The impact of globalization on markets has had a significant impact on markets. From neoliberal perspective, markets are seen as a mechanism to promote the rule of law and transparency. With the increase investment and trade, the requirement of states to have regulatory standards for trade, such as transparency, has also increased. In some cases, economic globalization can serve to increase the accountability of labor rights and social conditions. As Brysk stated, “new market mechanisms based in civil society, such has socially responsible investments and green marketing, seek to harness commodification to improve social conditions and promote empowerment.” (Brysk 2002:245)

 

At the same time, markets have increased human rights abuses, despite the increase in civic monitoring bodies. As mentioned before, the human rights violations committed by multinational corporations are covered up by states. International financial institutions have distorted global markets via structural adjustment programs that increase social inequality, violence and poverty. In Southeast Asia, the tourism sector directly violates human rights. As Brysk stated, “thus security forces in South East Asia can hardly be expected to protect young women from kidnapping, assault, rape, and slavery for the prostitution trade, when police and militaries are not only bribed by actual investors in the brothels.”(Brysk 2002:245) Essentially, the marketplace presents more opportunities for exploitation and abuses as it operates on free market principles, which is a direct opposite of the implementation of global human rights.

 

Given the so-called erosion of state power it has left organizational space for other groups or associations to be apart of the implementation of human rights.  Global civil society is regarded as a counterbalance of the state and markets as it can increase public awareness about human rights. Global civil society serves as tool to unite people from different parts of the world for a specific cause, which can create new potential for the pursuit of the implementation of human rights. Given the technological advances, global civil society can create massive public campaigns via the Internet.

 

Global civil society can increase public awareness however; there are other factors of global civil society that hinder the implementation of global human rights. As there are groups that promote human rights, there are groups that forming, who in some cases have more resources, which are against human rights (e.g. Neo-Nazis and terrorists groups). The information campaigns of those groups who support human rights can distort the plight of the poor in developing countries. Also, global civil society organizations that are organized for a particular cause can challenge human rights in certain situations; such has conflicts between indigenous groups and transnational environmentalists.

 

From this brief examination one can see that globalization is presents a myriad of threats and opportunities for the implementation of global human rights. One can also see that globalization is not an inevitable force that operates in the global political economy but it a constructed process that is shaped by states, markets and global civil society.

 

Source:

Brysk, Alison (ed), Globalization and Human Rights 2002 University of California Press.

Tax Free Savings Account: Savings is the Operative Word

The Canadian Federal Government introduced the Tax Free Savings Account (TFSA) as an incentive for Canadians to more fiscally methodical with their money throughout their life.

 

The Federal Government presents a commonsense approach to the benefits of a TFSA; however, what is lacking the economic reality of most Canadians. The Federal Government wants Canadians to save more money; however, a TFSA will only be useful for to those who have the income to put aside.

 

For instance, according to the National Council of Welfare, “[m]any Canadians work hard all year but at a low-wage job, they won’t even reach the poverty line. And the lack of quality, affordable childcare still denies opportunities to parents and their children to succeed and build a better future.”[ii] For the low-income Canadians, living from hand to mouth, they do not have the income to put into a TFSA because they are merely trying to survive.

 

If the intent of the Federal Government was for Canadians to save, they should have spent time in developing the country’s socioeconomic infrastructure to facilitate Canadians at all income levels to save their money. Given the increase in prices, education, cost of living, housing, utilities and gas, few Canadians will have money to put into a TFSA.

---

[i] http://www.budget.gc.ca/2008/pamphlet-depliant/pamphlet-depliant2-eng.asp

 

[ii] National Council of Welfare. Solving Poverty: Four Cornerstones of a Workable National Strategy for Canada. Ottawa, ON, Canada: National Council of Welfare, 2007. p 1.

 

Weapons of Imagery: The Convergence of War and Public Relations

Certainly, public relations techniques and practices can not prevail over highly trained armies and sophisticated weapons; however, they alone can not win a war either. In times of crisis and war, effective communication is just as important as the effective use of bullets and bombs. To win a war today, governments and political leaders have to win on the battlefield and win the supports of their publics.

 

The Vietnam War is known for its visual legacy. According to Huebner, “the Vietnam War is better remembered as the first televised war.”[1] The little naked girl running down a road, screaming from napalm burns with her arms held from her sides is regarded as “a defining photographic icon; it remains a symbol of the horror of war in general and the war in Vietnam in particular.”[2] President Johnson as well as other academics accused the media of sensationalizing the war, which lead to misleading and influence public opinion.[3]

 

Was the media to blame of the socially and politically charged footage or was in President Lyndon Johnson inability to establish clear and structured media relations? According to Shipley, “[e]ven more damaging to the administration’s efforts was Johnson’s outright disdain for public discussion.”[4]  President Johnson’s disdain for public discussion created an information void in which the reporters and journalists took the leadership position. As a result, Johnson was also fighting the media as “the continual stream of images reflecting a war without clear battle lines dovetailed perfectly with the government’s lack of either plausible rationale or coherent strategy.”[5] There is much debate whether it was President’s Johnson’s lack of leadership of the Vietnam War or the media sensationalized the Vietnam War; however, “[m]any in leadership roles have been saying since Vietnam, “never again.”[6]

 

Never happening again, specifically, means not having an uncensored televised war in which the government is on the reactive end of the media. Instead and since Vietnam, the government and political leaders have taken strong defined leadership position; to a point that it is even dictatorial. This is evident in the coverage of the Iraq war. Unlike in the Vietnam War, there were no iconic photographs that capture the complexities of war.

 

By the time Iraq War in 2003, the American government perfected the media management system. The American government and the military devised a pool system that only select number of reporters and journalists could have limited access to the war zone. As Kumar described, “the pool system allowed the military to control the movement of journalists and to restrict where they went and what they saw. Journalists were taken to selected sites and not allowed to interview soldiers without a military minder present.”[7] Unlike Johnson, Bush established a gatekeeper relationship with media to ensure that the media would be supporting the government’s war efforts.

 

Since the Vietnam War, there not only has been a perfection of military artillery and weaponry but also the creation of well-constructed media management system that controls the imagery and of war. Learning of the public relations disaster of the Vietnam War, the government and military have enlisted the media in their war efforts.

 

Lastly, from this one can see how public relations has evolved with respect to war; however, there is another issue lurking in between its evolution. As the public relations strategies surrounding war become perfected, at the same time, are the principles of democracy being eroded?

 

 

---

[1] Huebner, Andrew J., “Rethinking American Press Coverage of the Vietnam War, 1965-68,” Journalism Histor,y 31(3) pg. 152

[2] Buell, H. (1999). Moments: The Pulitzer Prize photographs, a visual chronicle of our times. New York: Black Dog and Leventhal. Pg. 102

[3] Huebner pg 150.

[4] Shipley, David Stiles, “Sacrifice, Victimization, and Mismanagement of Issues :LBJ’s Vietnam Crisis,” Public Relations Review, 18(3) pg. 284

[5] Hariman, Robert and Lucaites, John Louis, “ Public Identity and Collective Memory in U.S. Iconic Photography: The Image of “Accidental Napalm,” Critical Studies in Media Communication , 20(1) pg.41

[6] Hiebert pg, 108

[7] Kumar, Deepa “Media, War,  and Propaganda: Strategies of Information Management During the 2003 Iraq War” Communication and Critical/Culural Studies 3(1) 2006 pg. 51

Social Distortion Brought To You by United Colors of Benetton

Known for their controversial advertising campaigns, Benetton claims that it is “an expression of our time.”[1] Benetton maintains that the United Colors campaign is intended to increase public awareness of social issues. Quoted in Squires, Peter Fressola, Benetton’s Director of Communications, stated that “[w]e‘re sponsoring these images in order to change people’s minds and create compassion around social issues. We think of it as an art with a social message.”[2] Benetton’s artistic expression has fuelled much deserved controversy and despite their altruistic claims, the company use of shock advertising was a strategic marketing manoeuvre to generate public attention to sell their products.

 

Benetton’s socially and emotionally charged advertisements are not designed to create compassion or increase awareness of multifaceted social issues rather it is to appear distinctive to consumers as well as competitors. According to Benetton’s website “Benetton Group’s advertising campaigns are not only a means of communication but an expression of our time. Through their universal impact, they have succeeded in attracting the attention of the public and in standing out amid the current clutter of images.”[3] These statements are void of their desire to create compassion; in fact, it reveals that Benetton’s cause-related marketing is superficial and aimed to stand out from the “clutter of images.”

 

The point of contention of the Benetton’s advertisements is that these social issues are framed in a commerce/consumption medium. In other words, Benetton’s brand advertising situates social issues in a medium that it used to sell goods and services. Although Benetton’s products do not appear in the advertisements; however, it is the green logo that stands as reminder that it is fact a profit organization this is informing the public of highly complex social dilemmas.

 

Benetton claims that their advertisements are an artistic representation of the social dilemmas that exist in the world. What is highly contentious about Benetton’s artistic expression is that it is exists in commerce/consumption medium. Moreover, Benetton’s imagery of human strife and misery is stripped from its historical and socially contexts and placed in commerce context, as a result, reduces the significance of social issues.

 

---

[1] Benetton website. [March15, 2007] http://www.benettongroup.com/en/whatwesay/campaigns.htm

[2] Giroux, H. (Winter 1993-1994). Consuming Social Change: The “United Colors of Benetton.” Cultural Critique, (26), p12-13.

[3] Benetton website. [March15, 2007] http://www.benettongroup.com/en/whatwesay/campaigns.htm